Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

City basically on lockdown under imminent bomb explosion.

Here's a story with more details:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/brussels-locked-down-after-terror-threat-level-raised-to-maximum

If these threats or even attackd become more common, I wonder how the population will react. Like we can't put everything on hold every week.

So what is the alternative?

Originally posted by Bardock42

If these threats or even attackd become more common, I wonder how the population will react. Like we can't put everything on hold every week.

There have been periods in the past with fairly frequent terrorist attacks. Countries and cultures adapt to it, as weird as that sounds, and get better at the 'return to normalicy' phase after a threat or attack. While also putting more effort into policing/combating them, of course.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So what is the alternative?

Like Q99 said, I think there'd be a degree of normalcy. Like terror threats won't stop games or shut down businesses.

This was a imminent threat. Your suggestion would put people's lives in danger.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Here's a story with more details:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/brussels-locked-down-after-terror-threat-level-raised-to-maximum

If these threats or even attackd become more common, I wonder how the population will react. Like we can't put everything on hold every week.

Yea sounds good, as attacks become more normal, basically let it become a normal way of life.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This was a imminent threat. Your suggestion would put people's lives in danger.

But if it is regular, that's just the deal.

London was being bombed daily in World War II and people just got on with their day. You died or, much more likely, you didn't, but life had to go on. People adapt.

This won't ever get remotely that bad.

Yeah, these terror attacks will become part of normal life, like school shootings, gang violence, cop shooting, etc. Especially when the West becomes congested (or should I say infested) by Arab Muslim extremists who manage to slip through immigration security checks.

Just a reminder, Europe's had more terrorism than this before, from in-home separatist movements. Some years topping 400 deaths.

While religious terrorism has been on the rise, separatist terrorism has been on the decline, and while the individual incident is much worse, there's fewer incidents.

A thing about reacting heavily, react too strong, especially in no-productive ways and you're helping doing the terrorist's job- to sew terror and to raise your cost. Ideally, responses should be effective but as low-impact as possible beyond that, and one thing to strongly avoid is "makework safety responses." Like how in the US, they spent a lot of time having TSA check shoes and small bottles of liquid, even though they're near-useless for terrorist attacks anyway, but people wanted appearance of thoroughness to feel safe, and we got that appearance, at high cost, without actually helping our safety (and an irony, all the extra makework safety checks took people away from biological customs checks, which caused some introduced species of bugs to come in, which costs the US tens, maybe hundreds of millions to combat them).

Making a fuss isn't the same thing as effective counter terrorism, and the real effective counter terrorism can be surprisingly low key.

So you're saying all we have to do is do nothing and watch the world burn?

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that some of the first things people jump to in reaction to terror acts like the one in Paris are the wrong response, and can actually negatively affect safety.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
So you're saying all we have to do is do nothing and watch the world burn?


Wow, that's literally directly opposed to what I said


"Making a fuss isn't the same thing as effective counter terrorism, and the real effective counter terrorism can be surprisingly low key."


The focus should be on effective counterterrorism and getting things back to normal, not making a big show of counter-terrorism and shutting things down more than needed to make people feel warm and fuzzy about doing something but are really just being counter-productive.

Originally posted by Q99
Just a reminder, Europe's had more terrorism than this before, from in-home separatist movements. Some years topping 400 deaths.

While religious terrorism has been on the rise, separatist terrorism has been on the decline, and while the individual incident is much worse, there's fewer incidents.

A thing about reacting heavily, react too strong, especially in no-productive ways and you're helping doing the terrorist's job- to sew terror and to raise your cost. Ideally, responses should be effective but as low-impact as possible beyond that, and one thing to strongly avoid is "makework safety responses." Like how in the US, they spent a lot of time having TSA check shoes and small bottles of liquid, even though they're near-useless for terrorist attacks anyway, but people wanted appearance of thoroughness to feel safe, and we got that appearance, at high cost, without actually helping our safety (and an irony, all the extra makework safety checks took people away from biological customs checks, which caused some introduced species of bugs to come in, which costs the US tens, maybe hundreds of millions to combat them).

Making a fuss isn't the same thing as effective counter terrorism, and the real effective counter terrorism can be surprisingly low key.

How do you manage to rhetoric your way out of blaming the people responsible and somehow put average citizens in danger?

It's bad form to dismiss a reasoned argument as rhetoric. Engage or do not- but if you don't,. please don't post.

Tell me people will at least be walking around smoking cigarettes and saying "Good night and good luck".

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's bad form to dismiss a reasoned argument as rhetoric. Engage or do not- but if you don't,. please don't post.

Oh, it's even better than a dismissal.


Note how I was talking about the form of response to terrorism- the topic everyone was talking about.

Then he switch to the topic of "blaming the people responsible".


This is in reference to other threads where Time is really mad at me for not agreeing with his assessment on who the enemies is- that is to say, my insistence that we focus on the actual enemies, Daesh/Isis, Al Qaeda, and such, and not tar large groups that include people who oppose our enemies, and who going after would merely distract from going after our real enemies, if not outright aiding them (blind islamophobia is a great recruiting tool for them). Or in other words, it's Time who has trouble with blaming the people responsible.


So in response to Time feeling my words were too clever for him, rather than making a counter-argument, he instead switched to making an angry snipe about another subject where he likewise has trouble arguing me head-on.

Usually when a mod corrects something you don't cheerlead and then get your digs in.

How much does it negatively affect the economy. Many people would forego sporting events, concerts, large gatherings where a terrorist attack would most likely occur. I don't think society could be completely normal with these types of threats. I doubt I'd risk my family's safety by taking taking them to terrorist hot spots.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
How much does it negatively affect the economy. Many people would forego sporting events, concerts, large gatherings where a terrorist attack would most likely occur. I don't think society could be completely normal with these types of threats. I doubt I'd risk my family's safety by taking taking them to terrorist hot spots.

It depends a lot on the reaction and specific locations and how often the attacks are. It definitely has an impact, but it's a complex calculus.

Thank Feetal that IsIll is the JV of terrorist groups.

My relatives are pissed. This is just stupid, the terrorists win if you shut down an entire city because of two suspects

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My relatives are pissed. This is just stupid, the terrorists win if you shut down an entire city because of two suspects

Yeah, but they also win if they get to freely blow/shoot up a bunch of people.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, but they also win if they get to freely blow/shoot up a bunch of people.
Two guys are never worth shutting down a city, man.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Two guys are never worth shutting down a city, man.

No, it's not, but the fear and the panic got the better of the authorities.

i think we need to kill the whole " the terrorists win when we do xyz" response to terrorism... the terrorists will always win. they are masters at the art of propaganda. that's sort of their thing. the only thing to do is to crush them.